Ambivalent connections: A qualitative study of the care experiences of non-psychotic chronic patients who are perceived as 'difficult' by professionals

23Citations
Citations of this article
92Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

Background: Little is known about the perspectives of psychiatric patients who are perceived as 'difficult' by clinicians. The aim of this paper is to improve understanding of the connections between patients and professionals from patients' point of view.Methods: A Grounded Theory study using interviews with 21 patients from 12 outpatient departments of three mental health care facilities.Results: Patients reported on their own difficult behaviours and their difficulties with clinicians and services. Explanations varied but could be summarized as a perceived lack of recognition. Recognition referred to being seen as a patient and a person - not just as completely 'ill' or as completely 'healthy'. Also, we found that patients and professionals have very different expectations of one another, which may culminate in a difficult or ambivalent connection. In order to explicate patient's expectations, the patient-clinician contact was described by a stage model that differentiates between three stages of contact development, and three stages of substantial treatment. According to patients, in each stage there is a therapeutic window of optimal clinician behaviour and two wider spaces below and above that may be qualified as 'toxic' behaviour. Possible changes in clinicians' responses to 'difficult' patients were described using this model.Conclusions: The incongruence of patients' and professionals' expectations may result in power struggles that may make professionals perceive patients as 'difficult'. Explication of mutual expectations may be useful in such cases. The presented model gives some directions to clinicians how to do this. © 2010 Koekkoek et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

References Powered by Scopus

Qualitative research in health care: Assessing quality in qualitative research

2571Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Relation of the therapeutic alliance with outcome and other variables: A meta-analytic review

2496Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

A brief mental health outcome scale. Reliability and validity of the global assessment of functioning (GAF)

898Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Cited by Powered by Scopus

Evidence-based competencies for improving communication skills in graduate medical education: A review with suggestions for implementation

91Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

How do patients come to be seen as 'difficult'?: A mixed-methods study in community mental health care

59Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

The Art of Helpful Relationships with Professionals: A Meta-ethnography of the Perspective of Persons with Severe Mental Illness

58Citations
N/AReaders
Get full text

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Koekkoek, B., van Meijel, B., van Ommen, J., Pennings, R., Kaasenbrood, A., Hutschemaekers, G., & Schene, A. (2010). Ambivalent connections: A qualitative study of the care experiences of non-psychotic chronic patients who are perceived as “difficult” by professionals. BMC Psychiatry, 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-244X-10-96

Readers over time

‘11‘12‘13‘14‘15‘16‘17‘18‘19‘20‘21‘22‘23‘24‘2505101520

Readers' Seniority

Tooltip

PhD / Post grad / Masters / Doc 29

57%

Researcher 16

31%

Professor / Associate Prof. 3

6%

Lecturer / Post doc 3

6%

Readers' Discipline

Tooltip

Psychology 28

52%

Nursing and Health Professions 11

20%

Medicine and Dentistry 9

17%

Social Sciences 6

11%

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free
0